Nuclear Energy University Programs FY12 Review G.A. Bala, NEUP-IO Program Manager
Improvement and Change The NEUP-IO continues to seek improvement. Several techniques are used including: Lessons Learned. The IO office collects experiences and outcomes for integration as process improvement NEUP IO Exec Committee, NEAC, NEDHO, TRTR, others Interactions with PI’s, TPOC’s, others Congressional and public advocacy The purpose is to understand satisfaction with NEUP processes in order to make continued improvements 2
The Big Picture Average scores for the quantitative questions increased in 2011 to their highest levels thus far, with the exception of the full proposal elements which increased from 2010 but remained slightly lower than 2009 levels 3
FY11 Survey Results / Lessons Learned Concerns and Input ♦ Those with ties to the INL receive an unfair advantage/too much bias ♦ Proposals teaming with the INL had a success rate of 16%, 7 th out of the 10 labs competing as partners ♦ “Don’t ask for proposals in areas that won’t be funded” ♦ DOE reserves the right on all funding decisions. If the highest scoring proposal in a category is not funded, none are funded ♦ Workscopes are developed before the appropriations are known 4
FY11 Survey Results / Lessons Learned Concerns and Input ♦ Irregularities in reviews / Quality of feedback ♦ Lead time for preparation of submissions and attendance at workshops The NEUP-IO works a very aggressive schedule to place current year dollars in projects ♦ Amount of funding to specific investigators DOE-NE does not limited the funding to any single investigator, but rather runs a competitive solicitation process. As previously detailed, performance metrics will be considered in future reviews. 5
NEUP Review Process Overview RPA Proposals Full Proposals 3 page 10 page Invited Not Invited Relevancy Technical Relevancy Relevancy Panels Panels Review Review Highly Relevant Recommendation Peer Review Panels Recommendation SSO Selection Panels SSO Selection Invited Not Invited 6
Relevancy / Program Priority Review ♦ Weighted according to program involvement: Program Directed 50% Program Supporting 35% Mission Supporting 20% ♦ Six categories: Unquestionably Relevant : Unquestionable Program Priority Highly Relevant : High Program Priority Relevant : Intermediate Program Priority Moderate Relevance : Moderate Program Priority Low Relevance : Low Program Priority Not Relevant : No Program Priority 7
Technical Review • Scoring guidelines and criteria are given for each of 4 areas with collection of comments: Scientific and Technical Merit Research Plan R&D Resources and Capabilities Team Qualifications 8
NEUP/NSF Benchmarking Technical Merit How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within the workscope area and period of performance? How well does the activity advance discovery or explore creative, original or potentially transformative concepts? Intellectual Merit How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? 9
DOE Supports NEUP and NSUF ♦ DOE-NE supports university research through the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) National Scientific User Facility (NSUF) Research awards provide funding to perform specific experiments in a test reactor or make use of other NSUF facilities NSUF awards only cover the cost of the facilities and associated staff support NEUP awards can cover the costs needed to prepare the project and perform the research ♦ To address this issue and provide other benefits to the university community while enhancing nuclear research, NEUP and NSUF collaborated to align solicitations as appropriate 10
NEUP/NSUF Proposals ♦ In FY12, NEUP/NSUF programs had a joint solicitation process Success was predicated on positive review by both programs Access to NSUF infrastructure need must be immediate ♦ 12 applications were received in the NEUP RPA. Of those, 3 were invited to submit a full proposal, and 1 was awarded by NEUP I am submitting this proposal to: NEUP Only ATR-NSUF and NEUP 11
NEUP - NSUF Linkage Premise: NSUF does not fund programs, it funds access to capability and needed staff support. Does the PI have current Yes No funding that supports the basic salaries for their research, and is ready for facility access? Yes Yes Submit NSUF proposal. Submit NEUP and NSUF Approved? proposal. Both approved? No NSUF/NEUP funds No provided No NSUF funds provided No NEUP or NSUF funds provided Linking the ATR NSUF and NEUP solicitations streamlines the process for both ATR NSUF and NEUP PIs. 12
FY12 R&D Solicitation Review ♦ 648 received pre-applications ♦ 48 selected proposals for $37.1 M 6 uninvited ♦ 150 invited full proposals 1 NEUP/NSUF ♦ 202 received proposals 3 invited were not submitted 55 uninvited proposals submitted • 25 were fully peer reviewed Pre-Apps Pre-Apps Proposals Proposals Submitted Invited Submitted Recommended 243 219 250 200 128 150 80 100 66 65 58 49 28 24 28 26 50 14 10 7 3 0 13 FCR&D NEAMS Reactor Concepts Mission Supporting
FY12 Selected R&D Proposals ♦ 48 recommended proposals are comprised of 32 lead universities NEAMS 3 ♦ 23 additional organizations are FCR&D collaborating 24 8 universities Reactor Concepts 8 national laboratories 14 6 industrial partners 1 other, including foreign institutions ♦ All participating organizations represent Mission Supporting 25 U.S. states and the District of 7 Columbia 1 foreign country (France) 3 projects from 2 minority institutions • University of Houston (2 as lead) and Virginia State University, (1 as collaborator) 14
Reactor Upgrades (Infrastructure) Major Reactor ♦ 7 proposals received from universities in 6 states requesting $7,823,156 ♦ 2 proposals recommended by panel ($1,709,894) Minor Reactor Upgrade ♦ 20 proposals received from universities in 17 requesting $2,889,023 ($299,663 in cost match) ♦ 12 proposals recommended by panel ($1,506,529 DOE funding with $107,540 cost match) 15
General Scientific Infrastructure (GSI) ♦ 57 proposals received from universities in 31 states requesting $13,164,406 ♦ 12 proposals recommended by panel ($2,822,232 DOE funding with $290,402 in cost match) 16
FY12 Scholarships & Fellowships Scholarships ♦ 82 submitted applications ♦ 39 recommended for award, representing 17 states ♦ 3.85 average undergraduate GPA Fellowships ♦ 154 submitted applications ♦ 31 recommended for award, representing 15 states ♦ 3.86 average cumulative GPA ♦ 164 - average quantitative GRE 17
FY 2012* NEUP Award Recipients WSU OSU U of I RPI BU ISU AU MIT UW-Madison 10 U-M UC, Davis CWRU NU PSU SUNY, Stony Brook USU Pitt UNR IIT ND UU CSU OSU UC, Purdue Berkeley MU CSM U of I VCU UNLV KSU GW UK VT MST NCSU UNM UTK USC FMU GIT ASU Texas A&M UT, Austin $48.1 Million in awards to date UH UFL $37.1M in R&D $5M in student investment $6M in infrastructure support 18 * Does not include FY12 IRP
FY13 Workscope Descriptions FY 2013 Research and Development ♦ 31 Workscopes are available (neup.gov) Review content carefully, as it changes from year to year as the needs of DOE-NE change Workscopes will be finalized prior to the R&D solicitation Most workscopes have been sub-divided this year for clarity ♦ Questions on workscopes are best answered by the POC’s and Federal Program Managers identified for each workscope 19
FY12 IRP Proposals Under Review ♦ $13.9M for Integrated Research Projects Advanced Nuclear Cladding and Fuel Materials with Enhanced Accident Tolerance for Current Generation & GEN III+ Light Water Reactors ($3.5M) Degradation of Used Nuclear Fuel in Storage ($4.4M) Award announcement expected Inherently Safe Light Water September 2012. Reactors ($6.0M) 20
Concluding Remarks ♦ $48.1 Million in awards for FY 2012 $37.1M in R&D $5M in student investment $6M in infrastructure support ♦ Up to $13.9 Million available to be awarded ♦ On the web at www.neup.gov for FY12 IRPs ♦ $219 Million awarded ♦ (NEUP.DOE) since 2009 21
Background Information 22
Recommend
More recommend
